BPA Fish and Wildlife FY 1997 Proposal

Section 1. Administrative
Section 2. Narrative
Section 3. Budget

see CBFWA and BPA funding recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Title of project
Effects of Fish Marking Protocols on Comparative Survivals of Transport and Control Groups of Migrating Juvenile Salmonids

BPA project number   5515400

Business name of agency, institution or organization requesting funding

Sponsor type   Placeholder

Proposal contact person or principal investigator

 Mailing address

BPA technical contact   ,

Biological opinion ID   RM&EP, Hypothoses: B.1.5; B.1.5.1.;and B.1.5.

NWPPC Program number   

Short description
This project will evaluate the extent to which handling and marking can influence results, and, if results are significant, will attempt to quantify those effects and explore any means to correct for bias, thereby addressing concerns raised by some researchers that handling and tagging techniques used in the evaluations may bias the results.

Project start year   1997    End year   

Start of operation and/or maintenance   0

Project development phase   PLANNING & IMPLEMENTATION

Section 2. Narrative

Related projects

Project history

Biological results achieved

Annual reports and technical papers

Management implications
A primary means of investigating individual survival rates of fish migrating through the FCRPS via various routes involves the collection and tagging of samples of those fish. Recently, this process has received criticism as a potential source of further mortality and/or bias in the estimates of survival and T/C ratios. It is necessary to know if the tagging process does influence survival, and, if so, to what extent can any potential bias be corrected, or alternative methodologies employed to avoid such a bias. This information would have direct bearing on the acceptance of the information, and therefore, management strategies for juvenile fish transportation..

Specific measureable objectives

Testable hypothesis
# B.1.5.: Anesthesia, marking and group delivery protocols do not bias comparative survivals of transport and control groups.
# B.1.5.1.; Survival and T/C of pre-marked yearling spring/summer chinook do not differ from survival and T/C of yearling spring/summer chinook marked at LGR.
# B.1.5.2.: Survival and T/C of premarked subyearling fall chinook do not differ from survival and T/C of subyearling chinook marked at LGR.

Underlying assumptions or critical constraints
The project would require that returning PIT-tagged adults be interrogated at hatcheries and at all available adult detection facilities in downstream dams


Brief schedule of activities

Biological need
Some scientists have proposed that PIT-tags be placed on enough pre-smolts at upstream points to permit electronic diversion of fish to transport (direct loading to barge) and control (delivery to bypass outfall) groups. This would obviate necessity of anesthesia and multiple marks (as in Hyp. I.A.), and concerns about recovery time for control and transport groups.

Some workers have argued for PIT-tagging of all hatchery fish. However, this hypothesis can be tested on a smaller scale as proposed in this project

Critical uncertainties

Summary of expected outcome
This new study would require marking the entire smolt output at one hatchery with PIT tags and coded-wire tags. Upon arrival at LGR, marked smolts would be delivered to barge or bypass outfall electronically. It would also place PIT tags and CWTs in Lyons Ferry fall chinook that would be released in the area upstream from LGR. Return would be evaluated at LGR. Additional recoveries would occur in ocean and river fisheries, and interrogations at all dams equipped with CWT diverters from denil ladders or (ultimately) with interrogation tunnels or slots for adults. Information would indicate what, if any, biases may result from tagging protocols (anesthesia, marking, and group delivery) for both pre-smolts and smolted fish (those tagged at dams).

Dependencies/opportunities for cooperation


Monitoring activity
Returning PIT-tagged adults would be interrogated at the hatchery upon return. They would also be interrogated at all adult detection facilities in downstream dams.
Insertion of CWTs would at first glance be unnecessary because the adults that return bear PIT tags. However, there are two reasons for use of CWTs:
1. The degree to which adults have shed PIT tags should be estimated at the hatchery. Presence of up to three year-classes of adults in broodstock requires that experimental fish of the test brood be marked for identification independent of the PIT tag
2. Presence of CWTs in returning PIT-tagged fish permits diversion of adults to interrogation tunnels where all adults that pass a given dam are forced to pass through a tunnel. Although the primary recovery point for PIT-tagged adults is the hatchery, information on possible delay and wandering or straying can be obtained at downstream points.

Section 3. Budget

Data shown are the total of expense and capital obligations by fiscal year. Obligations for any given year may not equal actual expenditures or accruals within the year, due to carryover, pre-funding, capitalization and difference between operating year and BPA fiscal year.

Historic costsFY 1996 budget data*Current and future funding needs
(none) New project - no FY96 data available 1997: 1,000,000
1998: 1,000,000
1999: 1,000,000

* For most projects, Authorized is the amount recommended by CBFWA and the Council. Planned is amount currently allocated. Contracted is the amount obligated to date of printout.

Funding recommendations

CBFWA funding review group   System Policy

Recommendation    Tier 2 - fund when funds available

Recommended funding level   $1,000,000